The current controversy and anger of the community with the new Wicked Whims update

[SoCalExile]

2 hours ago, Ashal said:

 

 

I stand by our decision to not allow review bombing and removing them. However, you're right. We made a mistake in this case with how it was handled and cleaned out.
 

To explain how it may have happened the way it did though... There was a lot of reviews in the review bomb, and rather than reading each and every single review that was recently posted to see if it was "legit" or "constructive", simply every recent 1 star review was quickly multi-selected and then hidden all at once on the assumption it was part of the review bomb. I'm not the one who cleaned out the reviews, but due the sheer volume of reviews and the fact that the moderators here are purely voluntary, I would not think it reasonable to expect them to read and make a judgement on each and every single review individually. 

 

In the meantime, I have temporarily disabled reviews in the WW section. When it's re-enabled at a later date we will do a more proper sorting through of the reviews, and if there are any proper 1-star reviews that got hidden when they should not have, they will be restored.

 

I'd give you a like but for some reason I'm limited to 1 like today and I already spent it, lol. ?

[moocow1]

There is one way to let TD know how you feel about it.

 

You either support WW or you don't

 

No amount of bitching or complaining or comment deleting will change that.

[Proje]

3 minutes ago, moocow1 said:

There is one way to let TD know how you feel about it.

 

You either support WW or you don't

 

No amount of bitching or complaining or comment deleting will change that.

 

Straight facts here.

[Jodan47]

1 hour ago, moocow1 said:

There is one way to let TD know how you feel about it.

 

You either support WW or you don't

 

No amount of bitching or complaining or comment deleting will change that.

 

First time posting on these forums, but yeah the recent change with WW has literally sucked out all the appeal of playing the game as I've been used to some of the more inappropriate relations that the mod opened up and supported so well previously. I only just started up the Sims 4 last night and noticed that WW had changed before coming to the forums to investigate. For me, playing The Sims is like moral-escapism and I'm not really playing my Sims in the same way I'd expect anyone to in real life and it's fantasy. 

But I won't get mad at the creators of the mod who obviously put in a ton of hard work, but I am still feeling sad that my casual go-to relax game, The Sims 4, has been lessened. WW got me back into playing the Sims 4 and buying more of the official expansions and now I'm feeling like this may be the end, which considering I have over 500 hours of the Sims 4 played I can't complain about the time I got to enjoy.

If things aren't tweaked in the future in the official mod or if alternatives don't pop up I do think I'll eventually uninstall the game and just move on.

[SticksStackStuck]

22 minutes ago, Jodan47 said:

If things aren't tweaked in the future in the official mod or if alternatives don't pop up I do think I'll eventually uninstall the game and just move on.

 

If you pit un the inappropriate unlock mod and check the correct boxes, everything is as it was.

[Jodan47]

2 minutes ago, SticksStackStuck said:

 

If you pit un the inappropriate unlock mod and check the correct boxes, everything is as it was.

I keep hearing mixed things about that mod in particular and not sure if some of it's coming from people who didn't enable it correctly in-game or not. Right now I'm trying to see if the game will run fine on 170h and if so I may stick with that for a bit and hold off on updating the Sims 4/WW/Basemental.

That said still thanks for the advice! I may have to try it out.

[Khlas]

39 minutes ago, Jodan47 said:

 

First time posting on these forums, but yeah the recent change with WW has literally sucked out all the appeal of playing the game as I've been used to some of the more inappropriate relations that the mod opened up and supported so well previously. I only just started up the Sims 4 last night and noticed that WW had changed before coming to the forums to investigate. For me, playing The Sims is like moral-escapism and I'm not really playing my Sims in the same way I'd expect anyone to in real life and it's fantasy. 

But I won't get mad at the creators of the mod who obviously put in a ton of hard work, but I am still feeling sad that my casual go-to relax game, The Sims 4, has been lessened. WW got me back into playing the Sims 4 and buying more of the official expansions and now I'm feeling like this may be the end, which considering I have over 500 hours of the Sims 4 played I can't complain about the time I got to enjoy.

If things aren't tweaked in the future in the official mod or if alternatives don't pop up I do think I'll eventually uninstall the game and just move on.

I didn’t really understand since you just have to install an unlock and add traits to keep what was there previously.
 

People just found a way to complain to promote their sick mod adding pets sex stuff without shame it seems. If they are just lazy to download a functionality from a mod that the patreon version used to need since age. 
 

if I was turbo, I’d remove the free version completely reading all these sick comment about a mod available free, with functionalities being removed that are still taking care about. There’s really nothing to complain about unless you admit that you’d like to get your teen having those prebubescent moodlets descriptions while looking at them having sex. 
 

just install that unlock, add those traits, and everything will looks as before. At best, you will have to add the traits to all the teens you want to be « 18+ » or whatever. I guess someone could create a batch to add the trait on all teen from your game and you will still complain about it because you want minors despicted by the game itself through descriptions and moodlets as underage to have sex. I think it’s being weirdos at this point. Just use the mess around by EA, you don’t have to watch underage teen getting at it?

 

Looks like this is an opportunity for trolls and people dealing with something they aren’t concerned about (CN and turbo conflict which has nothing regarding this change at all) to spit into a mod they generally use themselves, because they are lazy to install a simple file or adapt to some changes. Big yikes in general. 

if loverslab wasn’t the only great place for sharing nsfw mods I’d just take my bags and go. The community feels worse and worse, it’s overwhelming. Fortunately not everyone are like this and bring constructive criticism.

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by Khlas

[Kerrigan001]

Absolutely! People with gigs of porn star sims, dildos, butt plugs, torture racks and assorted cc whining about adding one more file to the folder is insane. I already had the inappropriate unlock so I just had to mark the teens Post Pubescent and my game is literally unchanged as far as WW goes. I can tell from reading this thread almost all of the people bashing TD for making the change don't even know what HSY brought to the game. And the few that are aware are still doing mental gymnastics trying to explain away "Lorelei is experiencing her first taste of Puberty!" as not meaning exactly what it says. The Post Pubescent flag is the correct thing to do. Just do it. 

[Jodan47]

I just installed the inappropriate mod and the latest WW and feeling really stupid right now....I was under the impression that even with those both installed that only limited functionality was returned so when I started it up just to test and I saw that all the same/old relationship and sex restored settings in the menus and things the incestuous train was added back with the unlock mod I feel like a big asshole. Think there's just a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation out there there and it's not exactly less involved with the forums/community and I apologize.

[sshar22]

On 8/6/2022 at 2:23 PM, SoCalExile said:

 

Therefore I could get a speeding ticket for Mario Kart? Wut?

 

You're back to the need to provide evidence of an actual documented case of someone being convicted of a sex crime for what they did purely in a video game instead of just talking conjecture. 

 

I liked how you tried to blow off Paradox because it's in Finland but you argued (incorrect) law in Germany and Italy for a game from EA which is based in the US. ?

 

 

 

Let's just say I have been in a courtroom, Worked with lawyers and prosecutors my whole life. Know how the system in Germany, Italy, France and the UK works. 

I don't have to provide you with anything, this isn't a contest. There are plenty of cases, search for them or pay someone to do it.

Lastly, I really wish that they would not treat all this as "possession of illegal material" but as "violence and abuse against a person", But that isn't how they are doing it

You can accuse me of whatever you believe, it won't change reality, it won't chance what has happened in several cases.

LL and WW's action are totally warranted to protect themselves.

Stop thinking that judicial truth is the same as actual truth.

I wish you all the best, you'll need it with that level of naivety. 

 

Have a good day.

[SoCalExile]

54 minutes ago, Khlas said:

I didn’t really understand since you just have to install an unlock and add traits to keep what was there previously.
 

People just found a way to complain to promote their sick mod adding pets sex stuff without shame it seems. If they are just lazy to download a functionality from a mod that the patreon version used to need since age. 
 

if I was turbo, I’d remove the free version completely reading all these sick comment about a mod available free, with functionalities being removed that are still taking care about. There’s really nothing to complain about unless you admit that you’d like to get your teen having those prebubescent moodlets descriptions while looking at them having sex. 
 

just install that unlock, add those traits, and everything will looks as before. At best, you will have to add the traits to all the teens you want to be « 18+ » or whatever. I guess someone could create a batch to add the trait on all teen from your game and you will still complain about it because you want minors despicted by the game itself through descriptions and moodlets as underage to have sex. I think it’s being weirdos at this point. Just use the mess around by EA, you don’t have to watch underage teen getting at it?

 

Looks like this is an opportunity for trolls and people dealing with something they aren’t concerned about (CN and turbo conflict which has nothing regarding this change at all) to spit into a mod they generally use themselves, because they are lazy to install a simple file or adapt to some changes. Big yikes in general. 

if loverslab wasn’t the only great place for sharing nsfw mods I’d just take my bags and go. The community feels worse and worse, it’s overwhelming. Fortunately not everyone are like this and bring constructive criticism.

 

 

It's a video game FFS. It's not real and doesn't carry the same moral or ethical context. It's funny that y'all don't seem to understand that promoting an unlock is just putting it in your program with extra steps, and really isn't the ethical shield you think it is, especially when it's supported by TD (who totally isn't WickedAssistant ?) along with other add-on mods with questionable morality - if you want to go that route. It's up there with criticizing DD for having Rape while saying the "Forced Sex" in WW isn't rape when that's the literal definition of rape. ?

 

(ETA: the above only applies if you want to add real-life moral/ethical context to Sims, if you don't then moral/ethical context should be ignored)

The only time I've used the Pets module other than for morbid curiosity is during a storyline for Werewolves where my werewolf matriarch mothered her pack with a real wolf as the sire - which is probably in some fiction or myth already. If you don't like it don't use it.

Pull the free version and see if the fans bail and/or report it to EA. Y'all don't seem to get that ultimately this isn't our IP or application, it's EAs that they let us play around with. 
 

Other than that your post is a weak attempt at gaslighting. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by SoCalExile

[SoCalExile]

5 minutes ago, sshar22 said:

Let's just say I have been in a courtroom, Worked with lawyers and prosecutors my whole life. Know how the system in Germany, Italy, France and the UK works. 

I don't have to provide you with anything, this isn't a contest. There are plenty of cases, search for them or pay someone to do it.

Lastly, I really wish that they would not treat all this as "possession of illegal material" but as "violence and abuse against a person", But that isn't how they are doing it

You can accuse me of whatever you believe, it won't change reality, it won't chance what has happened in several cases.

LL and WW's action are totally warranted to protect themselves.

Stop thinking that judicial truth is the same as actual truth.

I wish you all the best, you'll need it with that level of naivety. 

 

Have a good day.

 

Right. And yet you can't give specific examples. 

 

Good day indeed. 

[SysGhost]

Ok so maybe it's time for everyone to put this to rest. Both sides have voiced their opinions and reasons for said opinions.

On one side, I can understand why some people are angry (If you don't that is also fine) on the other I can understand why it isn't that big of a deal.

There is currently alot of explenations why it was good or bad, and everyone can determine for themselfs what their point of view is.

 

Let's keep it on this, for now, everyone has voiced there opinion on the removal and it's up to TD if he wants to keep it or revert it.

If it get's reverted, cool, if not, cool, we indeed got the unlock.

 

But it is getting kinda ridiculous from both sides to see how much they are attacking eachother (I've been guilty of this, and so are most people on this form for the past few days). So let's just stop and see what happens.

[SoCalExile]

Ultimately you do you, and let people play what they want to play. It's not real so stop treating it like it is - and if you want to treat it like it's real, look at what you're doing before you try to guilt someone else. 

 

If you don't want to add a feature, fine. If someone else adds it, that's on them. 

 

Stop trying to cancel people, especially after they've moved on. 

 

Bad reviews are just part of the feedback process. Don't expect people to kiss your ass because then you've compromised your own feedback process. 

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by SoCalExile

[sshar22]

14 hours ago, anonymousarchiver said:

 

Actually, fun fact: pedophilia is the *attraction* to prepubescent children. In other words, an involuntary feeling. What's actually criminalized is child sexual abuse, or CSA.

 

Regardless of your feelings in the morality of being involuntarily attracted to children, imagine if we lived in a world where the government could punish us for thoughts or feelings. You think, "God, I'm gonna kill that asshole", suddenly you're on trial. Or even "Oh man, that person is hot, I'd like to have sex with them". If you said it out loud it could be considered sexual harassment, yeah? But it's a thought, involuntary. People don't have control over their thoughts or feelings - only what they do because of them.

 

To make it clear, I am absolutely 100% against CSA. It's sexual abuse against people who are incredibly vulnerable, of course I'm against it.

The law does not care. If the law says X, that's it, no sophisms will get you out of the crime.

 

I fail to understand how people get upset when someone (LL and/or WW) tries to protect himself maybe even erring on the side of excessive caution.

 

In most countries, we have already lost the right to express our thoughts beliefs and opinions based on "hurt feelings" and minorities, killing the basic right to dissent.

 

If we want those right back, the discussion should be held in the political/lawmaker field,  

No amount of whining at site, mods and authors will help. No amount of creative thinking or semantic arguing will help either, if not done in the proper places.

 

Cheers

[sshar22]

38 minutes ago, SoCalExile said:

 

Right. And yet you can't give specific examples. 

 

Good day indeed. 

Knock yourself out.

https://www.questionegiustizia.it/data/doc/1368/corte_di_cassazione_sentenza_n_22265_2017.pdf

this is one of thousands.

I repeat, PAY someone if you want all that documentation.

Searching for legal documents, proceedings and verdicts it is an actual profession and a very remunerative one.

 

[sshar22]

47 minutes ago, SoCalExile said:

 

Right. And yet you can't give specific examples. 

 

Good day indeed. 

This is the explanation

 

Spoiler

Federico Piccichè
Avvocato del Foro di Monza e membro del Consiglio Direttivo della Scuola Forense di Monza
Nota a Cass. Pen., Sez. III, Sent. 13 gennaio 2017 (dep. 9 maggio 2017), n. 22265, Pres. Fiale, Rel. Rosi

Cass. Pen., Sez. III, Sent. n. 22265/2017
La sentenza che si annota, affronta la questione se i fumetti di natura pedopornografica possano farsi rientrare nell'ambito operativo dell'art. 600 quater 1 cp, che punisce la pornografia virtuale.

Nel caso di specie il Tribunale di Brescia condannava l'imputato per il reato di cui all'art. 600 quater 1 cp per essersi consapevolmente procacciato, tramite il programma eMule, e aver detenuto nel proprio computer circa 95.000 files di pornografia virtuale, contenenti immagini di soggetti minori degli anni 18 coinvolti in attività sessuali «nella foggia di disegni o rappresentazioni fumettistiche», con l'aggravante dell'ingente quantità del materiale scaricato.

La Corte di appello, accogliendo il gravame proposto dall'imputato, assolveva quest'ultimo per l'insussistenza del fatto, atteso che nelle rappresentazioni incriminate «non apparivano effigiati minorenni, per così dire veri, ossia realmente esistenti e non erano state utilizzate immagini, o parti di immagini reali, di soggetti minori degli anni 18».

Contro la sentenza di secondo grado, il Procuratore generale presso la Corte di appello proponeva ricorso per Cassazione per violazione di legge in relazione all'art. 600 quater 1 cp, chiedendone l'annullamento.

In particolare, secondo il Procuratore generale, l'art. 600 quater 1 cp andava applicato anche ai fumetti di natura pedopornografica, dal momento che tale norma è destinata a punire la detenzione consapevole di immagini virtuali «che siano in grado, per la loro capacità di far apparire vere situazioni non reali, di alimentare la libidine sessuale verso i minori».

Con la sentenza in commento, la Corte suprema accoglie il ricorso proposto dalla Procura generale.

Più in dettaglio, la Corte, dopo aver premesso alcuni cenni sulla nozione di pedopornografia e, più in generale, sul concetto di pornografia, inizia il suo ragionamento ricordando che il legislatore, con l'introduzione dell'art. 600 quater 1 cp, ha ampliato e rafforzato la tutela penale contro la pornografia minorile e la detenzione di materiale pedopornografico, estendendola anche alla pedopornografia virtuale.

L'art. 600 quater 1 cp, infatti, recita testualmente: «Le disposizioni di cui agli articoli 600 ter e 600 quater si applicano anche quando il materiale pornografico rappresenta immagini virtuali realizzate utilizzando immagini di minori degli anni diciotto o parti di esse, ma la pena è diminuita di un terzo. Per immagini virtuali si intendono immagini realizzate con tecniche di elaborazione grafica non associate in tutto o in parte a situazioni reali, la cui qualità di rappresentazione fa apparire come vere situazioni non reali».

Ciò premesso, la Corte evidenzia che il bene giuridico protetto dalla fattispecie incriminatrice di pedopornografia virtuale è da identificarsi nella libertà sessuale dei bambini e/o bambine «da intendersi quale categoria di persone destinatarie della tutela rafforzata della intimità sessuale».

Secondo la Corte, coloro che producono, diffondono e detengono materiale pedopornografico virtuale vanno perseguiti perché, con le proprie condotte, alimentano «l'attrazione per manifestazioni di sessualità rivolte al coinvolgimento di minori», mettendo in pericolo il bene intangibile della personalità ancora in formazione del minorenne.

Da questo discende che la pedopornografia virtuale rileva sul piano penale anche quando viene realizzata senza utilizzare immagini di “minori reali”, dal momento che ad essere tutelata non è soltanto la libertà sessuale del bambino reale eventualmente effigiato[1], ma anche la personalità e lo sviluppo dei soggetti minorenni intesi come categoria in generale.

Lo scopo della criminalizzazione delle condotte di produzione, diffusione e possesso di immagini pedopornografiche virtuali consiste nell'evitare che tali immagini possano divenire lo strumento «per sedurre dei soggetti minori od invitarli a partecipare ad attività sessuali».

Ovviamente, la Corte non manca di sottolineare che la pedopornografia virtuale può essere punita ai sensi dell'art. 600 quater 1 cp soltanto quando consti di foto o filmati, che siano in grado di suggerire la reale esistenza delle persone rappresentate.

Sicché, secondo i giudici di legittimità, nell'ambito dell'art. 600 quater 1 cp possono farsi rientrare anche i disegni o le pitture, a condizione però che essi siano idonei a suscitare nello spettatore «l'idea che l'oggetto della rappresentazione pornografica sia un minore».

Anche per questo la Corte tiene a precisare che il delitto in questione è un reato di pericolo concreto, nel senso che il prodotto informatico di tipo pedopornografico deve essere qualitativamente dotato di una propria «capacità rappresentativa di soggetti minorenni coinvolti in attività sessuali».

Conseguentemente, anche la produzione, diffusione e detenzione di una rappresentazione fumettistica, specialmente se ottenuta con tecniche digitali altamente sofisticate, può andare incontro alle sanzioni stabilite dall'art. 600 quater 1 cp, se è in grado di fare «apparire come vere situazioni ed attività sessuali implicanti minori, che non hanno avuto alcuna corrispondenza con fatti della realtà».

Sulla base di quanto sopra esposto, la Corte censura la sentenza impugnata per avere escluso la sussistenza del fatto soltanto perché le immagini incriminate rappresentavano minori di fantasia «ritenendo per ciò solo esclusa ogni riferibilità, seppure apparente, ad una situazione rappresentativa di accadimenti reali», atteso che, come si è visto, anche il disegno pedopornografico di un minore di fantasia, che sia del tutto simile a un minore reale, va ricompreso nella definizione data dall'art. 600 quater 1 cp.

Per concludere la sentenza appare condivisibile e, soprattutto, coerente nelle sue argomentazioni.

Se, come si è visto, l'art. 600 quater 1 cp serve a proteggere i percorsi di crescita del soggetto minorenne, è indubbio che tale norma, per raggiungere questo obiettivo, deve perseguire coloro che producono, diffondono e/o detengono immagini virtuali pedopornografiche che, proprio per la loro alta capacità evocativa di situazioni reali, siano potenzialmente in grado di sedurre o traviare minori.

Il punto però più importante della sentenza è quello in cui la Corte classifica il delitto di pedopornografia virtuale come un reato di pericolo in concreto.

Ciò significa che, per rilevare sul piano penale, l'immagine pedopornografica virtuale, che può essere anche un fumetto o un cartone animato, deve avere una qualità rappresentativa «tale da far apparire come accadute o realizzabili nella realtà e quindi vere, ovvero verosimili, situazioni non reali, ossia frutto di immaginazione di attività sessuali coinvolgenti bambini/e».

Diversamente, se l'immagine pedopornografica virtuale per la sua grossolanità e rozzezza non ha la forza in concreto di rappresentare un minore in carne ed ossa, essa sfuggirà all'applicazione dell'art. 600 quater 1 cp.                                                                                                                                     

 

[Traplover]

25 minutes ago, sshar22 said:

The law does not care. If the law says X, that's it, no sophisms will get you out of the crime.

 

I fail to understand how people get upset when someone (LL and/or WW) tries to protect himself maybe even erring on the side of excessive caution.

 

In most countries, we have already lost the right to express our thoughts beliefs and opinions based on "hurt feelings" and minorities, killing the basic right to dissent.

 

If we want those right back, the discussion should be held in the political/lawmaker field,  

No amount of whining at site, mods and authors will help. No amount of creative thinking or semantic arguing will help either, if not done in the proper places.

 

Cheers

Something about me makes me doubt that you actually studied law.

 

The right to express your opinion differs based on country and region. Right to free speech laws don't apply in most parts of Asia where we have POFMA (Singapore) that govern hate speech.

 

There is no guaranteed prescription for free speech in AU too,

 

'The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensible part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution.'

 

Says humanrights.gov.au.

 

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression

 

Note, freedom of speech does NOT entitle you from freedom from concequence, as private entities are in full right to censor content however they like.

 

While I understand what WW wanted to do to protect himself, this seems awfully hypocritical to imply its out of 'moral duty', but update the inappropriate unlocks immediately afterwards.

 

It's so hypocritical that he not only does that, but has not ONCE provided evidence to support his claims of plagiarism, of which LL banned CN for. I suspect this is a bit of a case where some people are playing to his interests because they know WW is one of the most popular mods on this site.

 

I would completely drop all support for CN should TD show evidence that backs up his plagiarism claims. Being inspired by, or making modules for his mod are NOT plagiarism. It should fall under fall use.

 

Since TD refuses to show supporting proof, but also makes attempts to outright deny any constructive criticism of him, plus his leap of logic claims about CN's comments, I won't believe TD isn't exaggerating.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Traplover

[Proje]

What the fuck does that say?

[Alohaedjager]

I updated the game after 2 years without doing it, cuz fk it, it was running fine.... Wanted to try the werewolfs and that shit, and lol, I enciuntered this drama and the fact that my 50GBS moded save is in the recycler bin now..... what a nice time to be alive....

[SticksStackStuck]

1 hour ago, Jodan47 said:

I keep hearing mixed things about that mod in particular and not sure if some of it's coming from people who didn't enable it correctly in-game or not. Right now I'm trying to see if the game will run fine on 170h and if so I may stick with that for a bit and hold off on updating the Sims 4/WW/Basemental.

That said still thanks for the advice! I may have to try it out.

 

I don't think the mod itself is the problem, but you'll have to jump through a few hoops to enable teen sex in the WW-settings. Then you have to give the teens in question the "post bubescent" traits in the WW traits menu. Once that's done, teens will start having sex again. To the degree it's relevant, the mod works perfectly fine for me.

 

The only change that can't be fixed with the mod is that teens won't autonomously engage in sex at school or in the auditorium.  If you want to bang your date at prom you'll have to do it manually.

[SoCalExile]

33 minutes ago, sshar22 said:

This is the explanation

 

  Hide contents

Federico Piccichè
Avvocato del Foro di Monza e membro del Consiglio Direttivo della Scuola Forense di Monza
Nota a Cass. Pen., Sez. III, Sent. 13 gennaio 2017 (dep. 9 maggio 2017), n. 22265, Pres. Fiale, Rel. Rosi

Cass. Pen., Sez. III, Sent. n. 22265/2017
La sentenza che si annota, affronta la questione se i fumetti di natura pedopornografica possano farsi rientrare nell'ambito operativo dell'art. 600 quater 1 cp, che punisce la pornografia virtuale.

Nel caso di specie il Tribunale di Brescia condannava l'imputato per il reato di cui all'art. 600 quater 1 cp per essersi consapevolmente procacciato, tramite il programma eMule, e aver detenuto nel proprio computer circa 95.000 files di pornografia virtuale, contenenti immagini di soggetti minori degli anni 18 coinvolti in attività sessuali «nella foggia di disegni o rappresentazioni fumettistiche», con l'aggravante dell'ingente quantità del materiale scaricato.

La Corte di appello, accogliendo il gravame proposto dall'imputato, assolveva quest'ultimo per l'insussistenza del fatto, atteso che nelle rappresentazioni incriminate «non apparivano effigiati minorenni, per così dire veri, ossia realmente esistenti e non erano state utilizzate immagini, o parti di immagini reali, di soggetti minori degli anni 18».

Contro la sentenza di secondo grado, il Procuratore generale presso la Corte di appello proponeva ricorso per Cassazione per violazione di legge in relazione all'art. 600 quater 1 cp, chiedendone l'annullamento.

In particolare, secondo il Procuratore generale, l'art. 600 quater 1 cp andava applicato anche ai fumetti di natura pedopornografica, dal momento che tale norma è destinata a punire la detenzione consapevole di immagini virtuali «che siano in grado, per la loro capacità di far apparire vere situazioni non reali, di alimentare la libidine sessuale verso i minori».

Con la sentenza in commento, la Corte suprema accoglie il ricorso proposto dalla Procura generale.

Più in dettaglio, la Corte, dopo aver premesso alcuni cenni sulla nozione di pedopornografia e, più in generale, sul concetto di pornografia, inizia il suo ragionamento ricordando che il legislatore, con l'introduzione dell'art. 600 quater 1 cp, ha ampliato e rafforzato la tutela penale contro la pornografia minorile e la detenzione di materiale pedopornografico, estendendola anche alla pedopornografia virtuale.

L'art. 600 quater 1 cp, infatti, recita testualmente: «Le disposizioni di cui agli articoli 600 ter e 600 quater si applicano anche quando il materiale pornografico rappresenta immagini virtuali realizzate utilizzando immagini di minori degli anni diciotto o parti di esse, ma la pena è diminuita di un terzo. Per immagini virtuali si intendono immagini realizzate con tecniche di elaborazione grafica non associate in tutto o in parte a situazioni reali, la cui qualità di rappresentazione fa apparire come vere situazioni non reali».

Ciò premesso, la Corte evidenzia che il bene giuridico protetto dalla fattispecie incriminatrice di pedopornografia virtuale è da identificarsi nella libertà sessuale dei bambini e/o bambine «da intendersi quale categoria di persone destinatarie della tutela rafforzata della intimità sessuale».

Secondo la Corte, coloro che producono, diffondono e detengono materiale pedopornografico virtuale vanno perseguiti perché, con le proprie condotte, alimentano «l'attrazione per manifestazioni di sessualità rivolte al coinvolgimento di minori», mettendo in pericolo il bene intangibile della personalità ancora in formazione del minorenne.

Da questo discende che la pedopornografia virtuale rileva sul piano penale anche quando viene realizzata senza utilizzare immagini di “minori reali”, dal momento che ad essere tutelata non è soltanto la libertà sessuale del bambino reale eventualmente effigiato[1], ma anche la personalità e lo sviluppo dei soggetti minorenni intesi come categoria in generale.

Lo scopo della criminalizzazione delle condotte di produzione, diffusione e possesso di immagini pedopornografiche virtuali consiste nell'evitare che tali immagini possano divenire lo strumento «per sedurre dei soggetti minori od invitarli a partecipare ad attività sessuali».

Ovviamente, la Corte non manca di sottolineare che la pedopornografia virtuale può essere punita ai sensi dell'art. 600 quater 1 cp soltanto quando consti di foto o filmati, che siano in grado di suggerire la reale esistenza delle persone rappresentate.

Sicché, secondo i giudici di legittimità, nell'ambito dell'art. 600 quater 1 cp possono farsi rientrare anche i disegni o le pitture, a condizione però che essi siano idonei a suscitare nello spettatore «l'idea che l'oggetto della rappresentazione pornografica sia un minore».

Anche per questo la Corte tiene a precisare che il delitto in questione è un reato di pericolo concreto, nel senso che il prodotto informatico di tipo pedopornografico deve essere qualitativamente dotato di una propria «capacità rappresentativa di soggetti minorenni coinvolti in attività sessuali».

Conseguentemente, anche la produzione, diffusione e detenzione di una rappresentazione fumettistica, specialmente se ottenuta con tecniche digitali altamente sofisticate, può andare incontro alle sanzioni stabilite dall'art. 600 quater 1 cp, se è in grado di fare «apparire come vere situazioni ed attività sessuali implicanti minori, che non hanno avuto alcuna corrispondenza con fatti della realtà».

Sulla base di quanto sopra esposto, la Corte censura la sentenza impugnata per avere escluso la sussistenza del fatto soltanto perché le immagini incriminate rappresentavano minori di fantasia «ritenendo per ciò solo esclusa ogni riferibilità, seppure apparente, ad una situazione rappresentativa di accadimenti reali», atteso che, come si è visto, anche il disegno pedopornografico di un minore di fantasia, che sia del tutto simile a un minore reale, va ricompreso nella definizione data dall'art. 600 quater 1 cp.

Per concludere la sentenza appare condivisibile e, soprattutto, coerente nelle sue argomentazioni.

Se, come si è visto, l'art. 600 quater 1 cp serve a proteggere i percorsi di crescita del soggetto minorenne, è indubbio che tale norma, per raggiungere questo obiettivo, deve perseguire coloro che producono, diffondono e/o detengono immagini virtuali pedopornografiche che, proprio per la loro alta capacità evocativa di situazioni reali, siano potenzialmente in grado di sedurre o traviare minori.

Il punto però più importante della sentenza è quello in cui la Corte classifica il delitto di pedopornografia virtuale come un reato di pericolo in concreto.

Ciò significa che, per rilevare sul piano penale, l'immagine pedopornografica virtuale, che può essere anche un fumetto o un cartone animato, deve avere una qualità rappresentativa «tale da far apparire come accadute o realizzabili nella realtà e quindi vere, ovvero verosimili, situazioni non reali, ossia frutto di immaginazione di attività sessuali coinvolgenti bambini/e».

Diversamente, se l'immagine pedopornografica virtuale per la sua grossolanità e rozzezza non ha la forza in concreto di rappresentare un minore in carne ed ossa, essa sfuggirà all'applicazione dell'art. 600 quater 1 cp.                                                                                                                                     

 

 

Ok, thank you! Although it's just the results of an appeal of a sentence on the basis of a graphical representation. I don't know the context of the case, and if this is just asking for the sentence to be reduced based on PART of the conviction for numerous crimes or if the subject was convicted of one crime solely because of a creepy art collection. 

Now is the Wiki correct when it states this regarding Italian Law:

 

Quote

Virtual child pornography is punished with up to a third of the sanctions for real-life child pornography. Virtual images include images, or parts of images, produced and modified with software from actual photos of minors, where the quality makes it so that fake situations are manipulated to appear realistic.^[77] However, this law only regulates virtual graphic images based on real people (photomontages of real people). It is not defined as illegal if there is no infringement of the rights to the real person.

 

So the subject of the art has to be based on a real person, i.e. a graphical representation of an actual photo? 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by SoCalExile

[CypherDivine]

I don't think TD likes having competition. CN used to make modules for WW, which required WW. Not a problem. Its had extreme content, not a peep.

 

CN announced he's going to do his own thing (Devious Desire) not requiring WW, TD goes berserk accusing CN off stealing code and whatnot. CN banned I think a week after announcing DD. Smear campaign begins.

 

Now if a mod is a module for WW it's bound to have some of the same code. DD & S4CL however have nothing to do with WW.

 

Actually, I'm saw features of DD being copied the WW. Rough tag, custom body parts are things DD had before WW. 

 

I don't understand why TD and his click (like Deaderpool) can't just leave CN alone. You don't have to like him, but at least stop spreading bullshit about him, tell people his mods are shit while putting code in WW en MCCC to sabotage DD if installed together.

[sshar22]

5 minutes ago, Traplover said:

Something about me makes me doubt that you actually studied law.

 

The right to express your opinion differs based on country and region. Right to free speech laws don't apply in most parts of Asia where we have POFMA (Singapore) that govern hate speech.

 

There is no guaranteed prescription for free speech in AU too,

 

'The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensible part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution.'

 

Says humanrights.gov.au.

 

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression

 

Note, freedom of speech does NOT entitle you from freedom from concequence, as private entities are in full right to censor content however they like.

 

While I understand what WW wanted to do to protect himself, this seems awfully hypocritical to imply its out of 'moral duty', but update the inappropriate unlocks immediately afterwards.

 

It's so hypocritical that he not only does that, but has not ONCE provided evidence to support his claims of plagiarism, of which LL banned CN for. I suspect this is a bit of a case where some people are playing to his interests because they know WW is one of the most popular mods on this site.

 

I would completely drop all support for CN should TD show evidence that backs up his plagiarism claims. Being inspired by, or making modules for his mod are NOT plagiarism. It should fall under fall use.

 

Since TD refuses to show supporting proof, but also makes attempts to outright deny any constructive criticism of him, plus his leap of logic claims about CN's comments, I won't believe TD isn't exaggerating.

You are correct, I should have expressed myself better,

"In most European countries..."

 

On the consequences of expression. 

You said yourself, it depends from country to country, we still have in some of them the "lesa maiestatis". But I hope we agree that the consequences are different depending on how grave the content is. There is a distinction between calling someone "silly" in one's home, or slandering on the first page of a national newspaper.

 

On your disquisition on hypocritical defence, 

the parties involved are mainly protecting their income, through what statements denotes their ability or lack thereof expressing a logical and believable excuse for it.

 

On the accusation of plagiarism

I admit my total ignorance in the ability to compare coding ad see if they are indeed copied or not. I concur that it should be further investigated.

 

Cheers

 

 

[SticksStackStuck]

1 hour ago, sshar22 said:

Stop thinking that judicial truth is the same as actual truth.

 

Quoted for wisdom.